Whenever I see clothing articles geared toward hiking and backpacking that discuss layering (base layer for wicking, mid layer for insulation, etc.), they always seem to discuss these things in terms of things you wear on your chest. How come we don't apply the same principles to our pants? How come I can't seem to find base layer and mid layer pants when trying to select gear for cold weather hiking?

We don't? I'm wearing several layers of trousers when cycling in temperatures between -10°C and -40°C.
–
gerritDec 7 '12 at 14:57

4

Long underwear (base), thin fleece (mid), shell (outer). These three basic layers are found pretty ubiquitously for both upper and lower. There may be more options for upper - but is that for function, or style?
–
LBellDec 7 '12 at 16:53

2

I'd just like to say that this title is somewhat amusing to speakers of English(English), where pants=underwear. I don't think wearing multiple layers of underwear would be very comfortable!
–
NickDec 7 '12 at 17:19

3 Answers
3

Your legs aren't as sensitive to temperture extremes. Right now it's winter here and I'm walking around outside with a regular shirt, a wool sweater, and a wind breaker on my torso. Inside I take off the windbreaker an sweater. However, inside or outside, I'm wearing the same single-layer pants and it's not a problem. My legs don't feel hot inside or cold outside. If I had that same single layer on my torso, I'd be pretty cold outside.
Legs just don't care that much.

Changing layers on your legs is more of a hassle, especially with shoes on, and you can't take it to the same level in public without getting arrested.

We do have layers for legs, it's just that most people don't think the extra bother is worth it for most conditions. Consider long underwear, various types of regular pants, and special wind/rain/snow pants.

Good points (+1). Re: (2) There are full-side-zip pants for mountaineers (crampons) and wide-opening pants for skiers/boarders and regular boots. Re: (3) Any time it's cold or wet I've used layers, and so did the people around me. Because a jacket is easier to put on everyone starts there when that is sufficient of course.
–
Mr.WizardDec 7 '12 at 13:16

4

In addition, women can and do wear tights under their pants for extra warmth on cold days. There's no valid reason why men couldn't do that too: they just don't.
–
Kate GregoryDec 7 '12 at 13:45

1

I would add that keeping your core warm is more vital than keeping your legs (or even arms) warm. Other than that, answer seems pretty complete.
–
LBellDec 7 '12 at 16:51

1

@Kate isn't that what long underwear is? In colder states "long johns" are common.
–
Mr.WizardDec 7 '12 at 19:03

1

They're less sensitive, and you don't have organs there. Keeping your core warm is the top priority of your body's response to cold. Also, if you're hiking, your legs are staying plenty warm just from the heat of the working muscles.
–
Don BransonDec 16 '12 at 1:56

Actually, layering of clothing on the other parts of body is discussed, but not so often. There are many reasons for it:

The warming of the chest is crucial. This is where such vital organs like the heart and liver are placed, so the lowering of the temperature there is the most dangerous. In fact, your body can reduce the blood flow to arms and legs to help keep the core temperature.

It's easier to layer your chest than your legs. It's relatively easy to take off your jacket while walking; try to do it with trousers.

Legs consist mainly of muscles, so they are better isolated from cold.

Legs are actually producing a lot of heat while walking as they are doing the most of the work.